Gränserna för EU:s befogenheter - Om tolkningen av principen om ömsesidigt erkännande i förslaget till förordningen om e-bevisning
(2021) JURM02 20211Department of Law
Faculty of Law
- Abstract
- In this essay I examine the Commission’s interpretation of the principle of mutual recognition in “the proposal of a regulation on e-evidence”. Through the legal dogmatic theory, I examine recognized sources of law to find out both how the principle should be interpreted and how the principle has been interpreted in the proposal.
The research provides a reasoning as to whether the interpretation of the principle in the proposal is compatible with how the principle should be interpreted. Thereby, the research intends to start a discussion on how
the EU can interpret its competences.
When interpreting EU law, the European Court of Justice mainly applies the teleological method of interpretation, according to which Treaty provisions... (More) - In this essay I examine the Commission’s interpretation of the principle of mutual recognition in “the proposal of a regulation on e-evidence”. Through the legal dogmatic theory, I examine recognized sources of law to find out both how the principle should be interpreted and how the principle has been interpreted in the proposal.
The research provides a reasoning as to whether the interpretation of the principle in the proposal is compatible with how the principle should be interpreted. Thereby, the research intends to start a discussion on how
the EU can interpret its competences.
When interpreting EU law, the European Court of Justice mainly applies the teleological method of interpretation, according to which Treaty provisions is to be interpreted based on their function and in a way that ensures their effectiveness. The European Court of Justice’s extensive use of the teleological method of interpretation is said to fulfill a fundamental function in EU law, which is characterized by a “purpose-driven functionalism”.
The research shows that the interpretation of the principle in the proposal differs fundamentally from how the principle is interpreted today. The EU also has an obligation to respect the states’ national identity and the fundamental rights, which argues against the interpretation in the proposal being compatible with how the principle should be interpreted.
Regardless of that, it is concluded that the interpretation of the principle in the proposal is compatible with how the principle should be interpreted. This in view of the European Court of Justice’s extensive application of the teleological method of interpretation . (Less) - Abstract (Swedish)
- I uppsatsen undersöks kommissionens tolkning av principen om ömsesidigt erkännande i ”förslaget till förordningen om e-bevisning”. I uppsatsen tillämpas den rättsdogmatiska metoden i syfte att ta reda på hur principen ska tolkas samt hur principen har tolkats i förslaget.
I uppsatsen diskuteras huruvida tolkningen av principen i förslaget är förenlig med hur principen ska tolkas. Därigenom syftar uppsatsen till att starta en diskussion om hur EU får tolka sina befogenheter.
När EU-domstolen tolkar EU-rätt, tillämpar EU-domstolen främst
den teleologiska tolkningsmetoden, enligt vilken bestämmelserna i fördragen ska tolkas utifrån deras syfte och på ett sätt som säkerställer deras effektivitet. EU-domstolens extensiva tillämpning av... (More) - I uppsatsen undersöks kommissionens tolkning av principen om ömsesidigt erkännande i ”förslaget till förordningen om e-bevisning”. I uppsatsen tillämpas den rättsdogmatiska metoden i syfte att ta reda på hur principen ska tolkas samt hur principen har tolkats i förslaget.
I uppsatsen diskuteras huruvida tolkningen av principen i förslaget är förenlig med hur principen ska tolkas. Därigenom syftar uppsatsen till att starta en diskussion om hur EU får tolka sina befogenheter.
När EU-domstolen tolkar EU-rätt, tillämpar EU-domstolen främst
den teleologiska tolkningsmetoden, enligt vilken bestämmelserna i fördragen ska tolkas utifrån deras syfte och på ett sätt som säkerställer deras effektivitet. EU-domstolens extensiva tillämpning av den teleologiska tolkningsmetoden sägs fylla en fundamental funktion inom EU-rätten, som präglas av en ”målinriktad funktionalism”.
I uppsatsen konstateras att tolkningen av principen i förslaget skiljer sig fundamentalt från hur principen tolkas i dag. EU har vidare en skyldighet att respektera staternas nationella identitet samt de mänskliga rättigheterna vilket talar mot att tolkningen är förenlig med hur principen ska tolkas.
Trots detta dras slutsatsen att tolkningen av principen i förslagen är förenlig med hur principen ska tolkas. Detta med hänsyn till EU-domstolens extensiva tillämpning av den teleologiska tolkningsmetoden. (Less)
Please use this url to cite or link to this publication:
http://lup.lub.lu.se/student-papers/record/9046275
- author
- Lejon, Alexandra LU
- supervisor
- organization
- alternative title
- The limits of the competences of the EU - The interpretation of the principle of mutual recognition in the proposal for a regulation on e-evidence
- course
- JURM02 20211
- year
- 2021
- type
- H3 - Professional qualifications (4 Years - )
- subject
- keywords
- EU-rätt, straffrätt, principen om ömsesidigt erkännande, principen om tilldelade befogenheter
- language
- Swedish
- id
- 9046275
- date added to LUP
- 2021-06-14 09:33:00
- date last changed
- 2021-06-14 09:33:00
@misc{9046275,
abstract = {{In this essay I examine the Commission’s interpretation of the principle of mutual recognition in “the proposal of a regulation on e-evidence”. Through the legal dogmatic theory, I examine recognized sources of law to find out both how the principle should be interpreted and how the principle has been interpreted in the proposal.
The research provides a reasoning as to whether the interpretation of the principle in the proposal is compatible with how the principle should be interpreted. Thereby, the research intends to start a discussion on how
the EU can interpret its competences.
When interpreting EU law, the European Court of Justice mainly applies the teleological method of interpretation, according to which Treaty provisions is to be interpreted based on their function and in a way that ensures their effectiveness. The European Court of Justice’s extensive use of the teleological method of interpretation is said to fulfill a fundamental function in EU law, which is characterized by a “purpose-driven functionalism”.
The research shows that the interpretation of the principle in the proposal differs fundamentally from how the principle is interpreted today. The EU also has an obligation to respect the states’ national identity and the fundamental rights, which argues against the interpretation in the proposal being compatible with how the principle should be interpreted.
Regardless of that, it is concluded that the interpretation of the principle in the proposal is compatible with how the principle should be interpreted. This in view of the European Court of Justice’s extensive application of the teleological method of interpretation .}},
author = {{Lejon, Alexandra}},
language = {{swe}},
note = {{Student Paper}},
title = {{Gränserna för EU:s befogenheter - Om tolkningen av principen om ömsesidigt erkännande i förslaget till förordningen om e-bevisning}},
year = {{2021}},
}